what to expect when your expecting, page-15

Yeah, look my bad mate. Ridiculous was an overstatement. I do not like or condone this sort of talk as I have drilled enough holes and been disappointed enough times to know that this sort of thing rarely works out. But that’s how mineral exploration works you have a hypothesis and then you test it.

There are too many parameters at work that need to be taken into consideration before one can make estimates such as the above.

1. What is the ratio between the central sulphide mineralisation and the BIF. In some deposits the mineralisation has been known to attain widths of 150m with the BIF only being 10 m in thickness. In other cases Platsearch drilled a 150 m thick BIF which was associated with 5 m of mineralisation.

2. Does the Mafic dyke grow larger near the centre of the deposit? This could be good or bad. The same growth fault which has produced the mineralisation by acting as a conjugate most likely acted as a conjugate for this dyke meaning that the high temperature dyke has influence the mineralisation in some way. Remobilisation and enrichment in some areas and depletion in others.

3. Was the fault active whilst the mineralisation was being deposited and if so what was the initial angle and throw of the fault. If the movement had been great enough and persisted for too long the central portion of the ore body could have a hole sitting smack bang in the middle of it. If the subsequent basin inversion reactivated the fault the mineralisation could be thickened…….significantly!
4. What have been the effects of the 1600Ma IOCG event on the Ore body? A prominent structure which is capable of transporting large amounts of fluid during one tectonothermal event will in 9 out of ten cases transport fluids from subsequent events. Was the chemistry of latter fluids such that it upgraded the mineralisation or depleted it. Having spoken to the MD they do see evidence of this in some of the Cu Au rich zones which they have intersected along with not just the original 1680Ma SEDEX pyrhotite but latter pyrhotite breccia’s, veins and remobilisations.

5. What are the lateral extents of the different zone? The company when showing the zones on the mineral and oxidation state diagrams maintains a glass half full approach which is the sensible thing to do but how realistic is this.

6. And finally did the mineralisation carry the amount of fluid with significant enough metal contents to produce a sedimentary process which was formidable enough to compete with the surrounding sedimentary processes.
But to wrap this up, if the base case scenario was to occur then you predictions are valid but I find it hard to believe that none of the infinite number of complications did not affect the system. Gearing ourselves up for the bonza intersect that you speak of can make otherwise inferior but nevertheless good intersect seem below par seeing the share price drop due to misplaced expectations.

There are too many ifs in play. Everything that the company has done thus far has been stellar and this hole might get something nothing or everything. But as you said each to their own. I have learned to play the conservative game seeing mine and others expectations come short. I would love nothing more than your predictions to come through mate.

Once again sorry about the earlier comment.

Good luck